Orion Flat Slab Design Training

Orion Training
Flat Slabs
Copyright CSC(UK) Ltd. 2006
Flat Slabs
CONTENT
Introduction
Model Generation
Suggested Modelling Sequence
Tips for meshing & punching perimeter modelling
Building Analysis
FE Analysis
Adjusting model properties for deflections
Design and Detailing

Comparison with the Code Approach
Flat Slabs - Introduction

Why Flat Slab and why FE?
Perhaps you can tell us, is it:
For flat slab:
Reduced Structural Zones?
Potential for Fast Formwork Erection and Construction?
Un-obstructed service zones?
For FE:
A potential to accommodate more irregular column
positioning?
Only way to deal confidently with more complex isolated
load conditions?
Only way to deal confidently with significant openings?
Flat Slabs - Introduction
Why Flat Slab and why FE?

Whatever the reasons, we are certainly
seeing more and more demand for an
FE based flat slab solution within the
context of a building modelling
environment.
Flat Slabs Flowchart

1. Build the Model
2. Run the general building analysis to generate
column & wall forces for lateral loads only. *
3a. Use sequential FE floor analyses to chase

gravity loads down through the structure &
generate slab design forces.
3b. Slab Design and

Detailing
4a. Merge FE column results for gravity loads

with building analysis results for lateral loads.
4b. Column/Wall
* If FE Floor Analysis for Beam Loads has

been used to decompose slab loads at each
floor level, then building analysis generates
valid design forces for lateral and gravity
load cases in the walls.
3c. Punching
Shear Checks
Orion Training
Orion Training
Flat Slab
Model Generation

1. Build the Model

3b. Slab Design and

Detailing

4b. Column/Wall

3c. Punching
Shear Checks
Flat Slab Model Generation

We would suggest that by using the
following sequence you will ultimately
save time.

1. Make slab insertion easy by being
organised with grids
Avoid multiple closely spaced parallel grids
use one rather than two where possible.
If intention is to include column/wall sections,
avoid short distances from the slab edge to
the column face. (Introduces short length
meshing problems).
Consider shrinking grids before placing slabs.

2. Create larger regular slab panels, avoid
multiple slab panels between columns
and especially around columns.

3. As you insert slabs, (and before adding
holes and concentrated loads)
occasionally check the following:
Run Punching Checks and use hatch
option to see that punching perimeters
can be found.
Generate an FE mesh to see that
meshing works (using column section
modelling if it is your intention to do so).

4. Repeat the previous step after adding
holes and concentrated loads.

5. You should now have one floor that
you know is going to work in both FE
and punching. Other floors may be
completely different, in which case
the above procedure should be
repeated. If other floors are partial
duplicates you are now sure that the
copied model works before editing
starts.

6. Duplicate Floors It is not essential to
model every floor genuine
duplicates can be dealt with as such
hence avoiding repetitive meshing etc
take full advantage of his.

There are 2 primary difficulties with FE
models of flat slabs
Meshing fails to work
Punching perimeters cannot be found

Meshing difficulties can be caused by:
Short slab edges
Short slab spans between openings/edges
Loads within a column boundary
(Using the column/wall section modelling
option inherently introduces short edges and
can cause meshing difficulties)
Example 1:
Short slab
edge
Enlarged View of Wall Corner
Because walls not

meeting at 90 degrees,
Short slab edges created
at corner of wall.
No problem if column/wall sections not

Flat
Slab
Model
Generation
included.
But fails to
mesh when
column/wall
sections
included.
Solution:
Edit grids to
ensure walls are
orthogonal.
Example 2: Another Short

slab edge

No problem if column/wall
sections not included.
Flat Slab Model

Generation
But problem
when
column/wall sections
included
Solution:
Move column down
to remove gap

Short slab edge problem sometimes indicated
in the mesh generator by slabs being
incorrectly displayed as triangular.

Example 3: Slab load within column
perimeter

Meshes OK if column/wall sections not
included

Error if column/wall sections included

Solution:
Move the load outside the column
perimeter

Punching Perimeters
As geometry becomes more complex,
it becomes increasingly difficult to find
the punching perimeter.
Potentially very frustrating if you have
meshed and analysed lots of floors
and then cannot do punching checks.

However
This frustration is completely avoidable.
You can check the perimeters can be
found before even attempting meshing.

This is done as follows:
Display the Punching Shear dialog
Click Hatch Floor Area (Initially with Inc. Col,
Wall, Beam Edges Unchecked).

If entire floor area is hatched then punching
perimeters can generally be determined for
all columns.

If entire floor area is NOT hatched
then punching perimeters can not be
determined in the un-hatched areas

But, there is a tool that may resolve this:
Check the box to Inc. Col, Wall, Beam Edges, and then
click Hatch Floor Area again.
If entire floor area is hatched then perimeters are OK
Orion Training
Orion Training
Flat Slab
Building Analysis

1. Build the Model

3b. Slab Design and

Detailing

4b. Column/Wall

3c. Punching
Shear Checks
Flat Slabs Building Analysis

Building Analysis has to be run in order to generate
lateral design forces for columns and walls.
After running a building analysis, the gravity design
forces will not be correct unless the FE column/wall
results are merged.

It should be emphasized that FE analysis only
deals with gravity loads, and in building analysis
sway load will not be resisted by any framing
action between slabs and columns.
Sway loads should therefore be resisted by walls
(ie braced flat slab construction).
Unbraced flat slab construction remains beyond
the current scope of Orion.

The building
analysis will only
be valid provided
steps are taken to
ensure the
notional load
calculation is
correct use the
un-decomposed
loads option for
calculation of
storey weight.
Orion Training
Orion Training
Flat Slabs
FE Floor Analysis

1. Build the Model

3b. Slab Design and

Detailing

4b. Column/Wall

3c. Punching
Shear Checks
Flat Slabs FE Analysis
Sequential finite element analysis in

general is covered elsewhere in this
course.
For flat slabs in particular we need to
think about:

Selecting an appropriate slab thickness for
the load to be carried.
If the slab is too thin, Orion will be unable to
determine the area of steel required.
Therefore, always check the FE results for
excessive deflection before moving on to the
slab design.
For appropriate member sizes refer to:
C H Goodchild, Economic Concrete Frame

Elements, British Cement Association

Checking for Serviceability
BS8110 doesnt set a definitive limit for deflection.
However, the span-to-depth checks in the code imply that
the following limits are typically satisfied:
Total deflection limited to span/250
Deflection occurring after installing non-structural
items limited to span/500
For regular geometries, the span-to-depth check will be
automatically satisfied by use of the previously mentioned
publication. However, it may be impossible to apply this
check to irregular geometries or slabs with holes.

A prediction of the actual deflection may often be
regarded as a key issue, therefore what analysis
model should be used?
BS8110 Suggests Consistent properties
It is your decision, we would suggest:

If you are concerned about deflection then you should
think about that from the outset.
Ultimately, one model should suffice if it is correct for
deflection then it ought to be OK for the design
moments.
Lets, consider deflection in more detail

Deflection results for concrete structures should
be regarded as estimates no matter what type of
analysis is used. Unknowns associated with the
accuracy of the material properties dictate this.
For example, BS8110 indicates for C40 concrete,
E in the range 22 - 34kN/mm2 so Orion defaults to
28kN/mm2.
This stiffness needs to be modified to allow for

creep and cracking.

Three sources of reference considered here:
1. CIRIA Report 110 (2nd Edition) Design of
Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs to BS8110
2. Hossain T.R. and Vollum R.L, Prediction of
Slab Deflections and validation against
Cardington Data, Proceedings of the Institute
of Civil Engineers, Structures and Building, paper
12500.
3. Concrete Society Technical Report No. 58,
Deflections in concrete slabs and beams
CIRIA Report 110 (2nd Edition)

gives some guidance on adjustments
appropriate to allow for both creep and
cracking.
In simple terms this suggests:
reducing E by half to two thirds to allow for creep
reducing I by half to allow for cracking.
Hence the stiffness (EI) should be adjusted
(reduced) by a factor of between 4 and 6, i.e. a
stiffness multiplier of between 0.16 and 0.25 should
be applied.
Prediction of Slab Deflections and Validation

against Cardington Data
These studies indicate the importance of propping and
the timing of prop removal on deflections.
In the absence of better data, this work appears to
conclude that long term deflections can be estimated
on the basis of a linear static analysis with an adjusted
EI value. Suggested adjustments are towards the
bottom end of the 0.16 to 0.25 range.
Where the pace of construction is slower or more
controlled it is feasible that higher multipliers can be
justified.

Technical Report 58 - Deflections in concrete slabs
and beams
This recent report provides the most up to date and
comprehensive review of available guidance and
methods.
Suggested methods of assessing compliance with
deflection criteria range from continued use of
span/effective depth ratios, to estimation based on
linear analysis, through to sophisticated non-linear
solutions.
A key point that is repeatedly emphasised is that you
are always dealing with an estimate, no matter how
sophisticated a method you use,
Calculated and measured deflections may differ by up
to 30%

Technical Report 58 - (continued)
The report makes a distinction between assessing
likely compliance with normal deflection limits and
actually estimating deflection for consideration against
other limits.
It notes that where normal limits are considered
applicable then use of span/effective depth ratios are
perfectly adequate. In fact it even notes that these
ratios will often give more economic solutions.
It emphasises that the more sophisticated solutions
need to be applied with greater caution and a full
understanding of all the factors involved which should
take account of construction/propping sequence,
loading history.

Orion currently uses linear elastic analysis the simplest analytical method discussed in
the report.
So it should be the simplest method for you to use.
In terms of estimating deflections based on a

linear analysis the report suggests some
initial conservative defaults.

Reduce E by half to conservatively allow for
cracking and shrinkage.
Reduce E to Ec,eff to allow for creep
Ec,eff = E / (1 + )
where = creep coefficient (from figure 7.1 of BS
8110 Part 2)
The creep coefficient is dependent on the

timing of loading, but the above would
probably generally result in a suggested
adjustment at or below the bottom end of the
0.16 to 0.25 range

TR 58 also provides more rigorous formulae
for estimating the adjustment factors and
deflection (suitable for spreadsheets)
NOTE: These adjustment factors are aimed at
providing conservative deflection estimations
rather than showing likely compliance with
serviceability limits. As will be shown in the
following example use of these factors on a
slab that satisfies span/effective depth limits
will tend to predict deflections that a little
higher than the suggested limits.

Minimising Slab Depths
The potential advantage of a more sophisticated method is

that the analysis lets you control deflection by the
introduction of more reinforcement.
TR58 notes that if you do this rather than use span effective
depth ratios you may start adding steel before even starting
to reduce the slab depth.
Consider a typical 300 thick slab that you want to try and
reduce to 275 thick. Based on gross section properties the
relative stiffness of these slabs is 3004/2754 = 1.4. This is an
over-estimate, but it is easy to see that a small reduction in
slab depth potentially leads to a significant reduction in
stiffness and hence to a significant addition of reinforcement
if this difference is to be catered for by adding
reinforcement.
Swapping to a post tensioned design would typically allow a
depth saving of between 50 and 75mm on a 300mm thick
slab. This represents the upper bound of depth saving that
could possibly be achieved by adding steel in an RC design.
Minimising Slab Depths (Continued)

As slab thicknesses are reduced other design
issues such as punching shear checks can
become more critical.
Clearly there are cases where engineers are
reducing slab thicknesses at the expense of a
significant increases in reinforcement.
There is some debate as to whether this is in
fact an economic balance that should be
pursued in the majority of cases.

Overview of Serviceability (Deflection)
Guidance.
This subject can potentially get very complex,
but is there actually a problem to solve?
There does not seem to be any reported
problems with apparently well designed slabs
suffering from excessive deflection.
Provided you have not completely ignored
traditional limits/guidance you are unlikely to
experience problems.

Applying Adjustment Factors in Orion
We require total dead and imposed deflection

under service load (i.e. unfactored)
However, in the Orion FE Post Processor the
results are for G+Q*F (i.e. factored).
To account for this, the stiffness adjustment
factors ought to be increased again by something
between 1.4 and 1.6. Hence the range for the
overall stiffness adjustment might be 0.22 to 0.40.
Noting that 0.22 and 0.4 are each derived by
taking the most extreme view of each contributing
factor, a range of 0.25 to 0.35 might be regarded
as more reasonable.

Implications of adjusting slab stiffness
Distribution of moments will be affected
In general reducing slab stiffness will increase
moments thrown into columns
Options available
1. All adjustment to slab
2. Some adjustment to columns and bigger
adjustment to slab
3. Adjust all equally

Option 2. - Some adjustment to cols and bigger
adjustment to slab
Adjust the basic material properties 50% reduction
applied below (Applied to All Members)

Option 2 (continued)
A further 50% reduction is applied using the slab
stiffness multiplier
Total adjustment = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 hence in

required range.

Summary of Options
Options available
Adjustment
Slab
stiffness
Column
stiffness
Effect on
Col
Moments
Effect on
Slab
Deflection
All adjustment to
slab
SSM 25%
E 100%
Reduced
to 25%
Not
reduced
Attracts
more
moment
into cols
Reduces
deflection
Some adjustment
to cols and bigger
adjustment to slab
SSM 50%
E 50%
Reduced
to 25%
Reduced
to 50%
Adjust all equally
SSM 100%
E 25%
Reduced
to 25%
Reduced
to 25%
Reduces
moment in
columns
Increases
deflection
The highlighted option is probably favoured by most engineers because it complies with code
guidance that consistent properties should be used throughout, and it keeps transfer moments to
columns to a level that seems to be more in keeping with traditional engineering expectation.
Orion Training
Orion Training
Flat Slabs

1. Build the Model

3b. Slab Design and

Detailing

4b. Column/Wall

3c. Punching
Shear Checks
Flat Slab Design - Introduction
Where should we start?

We are quite often faced with questions about highly
irregular layouts where the engineer is questioning
the results they are not what he expects, but he
has no strong basis for suggesting what the correct
results should be.
High Hogging Moments ?
Sagging Moments Small (What about Pattern Loading ?)
SO - The place to start has to be with a regular

structure where we can compare the expected results
based on longstanding and proven code idealisations
with the results from FE analysis.
Flat Slab Design - Introduction
The Example Model

A regular model.
5 bay by 5 bay.
8m bays throughout.
Top Floor columns
below only 400square
section.
300mm thick slab.
G = 8.7kN/m2
Q = 5.0kN/m2
Ult Load = 20.18kN/m2
Flat Slab Design Introduction

The following accepted techniques can
be run on this model to give us some
expected results
The Yield Line Method
The Code Approach (BS8110)

The basic expectation is that yield line
approach needs less reinforcement than is
required using an FE approach. It should be
more efficient where structural regularity
allows it to be applied.
Although FE is conservative in comparison, it
can deal with more irregular cases.

Both the Yield Line and the Code Approach check
deflections by means of span to depth ratios.
Because they determine the As required by different
methods, the resulting allowable span to depth ratios
will vary.
Both techniques would indicate the span to depth
ratio is OK.
Lets examine the Code Approach in more detail
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
The code actually provides alternative
simplified methods of dealing with something
as regular as this.
The very simplest method is outlined in cl
3.7.2.7 and allows strip design moments to
be determined using the coefficients in table
3.12.
The more complex option requires an
idealised frame analysis that is more tailored
to the geometry of each specific building - we
will only look at this option in this example.
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
This method requires you to idealise and
analyse a flat slab structure:
The idealisation depends on you being able to
identify column strips and middle strips.
You analyse the sub-frame as you would any
other beam and column sub-frame model.
You need to cater for pattern loads or apply
moment re-distribution to the results based on the
case with all spans fully loaded.
You proportion the resulting forces between
column strips and middle strips in an empirical
fashion.
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
The Analysis Model
Clause 3.7.2.2 indicates that the idealised 2D frame analysis should
be based on the gross section properties of the columns and the
slab strips (where the strip width is equal to the full panel width 8m in this case). The strips are loaded with the full slab load.
We can analyse this simple frame in any general analysis package,
e.g. S-Frame.
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
The Basic Analysis Results

The results for the case with all spans fully loaded are
shown above.
Since these are the results of a linear elastic analysis clause
3.7.2.1 (refers you to 3.5.2.3) applies and a 20%
redistribution of moments from the supports to the spans is
required.
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
Results after Redistribution
Suppt 1
Suppt 2
Span 1
Mmts before
Redistribution
91
Mmts after
redistribution
73
Percentage
change
-20%
Suppt 3
Span 2
1057
763
830
363
846
877
461
664
550
-20%
+15%
Span 3
627
-20%
+52%
+36%
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
Proportioning of Design Moments in Strips.
BS8110 Table 3.18 indicates how the design
moments should be proportioned between
Column Strips and Middle Strips.
Note that clause 3.7.3.1 also requires that the
central half of the column strip be designed
for 2/3 of the hogging moment. The
distribution of design forces in each of the 4m
wide strips is therefore as follows:
Distribution of Moments Explained
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
Distribution of Re-distributed Design Moments in
Strips.
Column Strip
Max Hogging (-ve)
strip
Redd Hogging
strip
Max Sagging (+ve)
50% in 2m wide central section of

12.5% in 1m wide edge sections of
55% over full 4m width of strip
Middle Strip
Max Hogging (-ve)
Max Sagging (+ve)
25% over full 4m width of strip.

45% over full 4m width of strip
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
Distribution of Design Moments
Suppt 1
Suppt 2
Span 1
Design Mmts
after redn
73kNm
Column Strip
Central 2m
Special
provisions
apply
Column Strip
2 Edges (2m)
Middle Strip
4m wide
Suppt 3
Span 2
846kNm
877kNm
55%
120kNm/m
Ditto
45%
99kNm/m
Span 3
664kNm
550kNm
50%
212kNm/m
25%
106kNm/m
25%
53kNm/m
55%
76kNm/m
Ditto
45%
62kNm/m
627kNm
50%
166kNm/m
25%
83kNm/m
25%
42kNm/m
55%
86kNm/m
Ditto
45%
71kNm/m
The Code Approach

(BS8110)
Consider the relative magnitudes of design moments
(after moment redistribution and proportioning).
Sagging Moments
Clearly the moments vary from span to span highest
moments in the end spans.
For a regular layout like this internal span moments are
restricted to around 70% of the end span moments.
Hogging Moments
Clearly the hogging moments intensify rapidly as you approach
the support (4 times higher than in middle strips)
We can utilise these expectations when we come to

determining reinforcing requirements in FE.

There is a Yield Line Calc in the TEDDS software
which can be run for this simple example

This does the deflection check on a span/eff depth
basis
And for the 300 deep slab this is shown to be OK
Comparisons with FE
We have established some expected results using
the codes idealised approach.
We can now create FE models and make
comparisons
The FE Approach
Creating the FE Model
Creep and cracking is allowed for by making some adjustment to
cols and bigger adjustment to slab
Adjust the basic material properties 50% reduction applied to
Modulus of Elasticity, E
A further 50% reduction is applied using the slab stiffness
multiplier
Total adjustment = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 hence in required range.
This is equivalent to using a deflection multiplier of 6 with
unadjusted properties. (Ref TR 58)
Creating the FE Model

Include Column and Wall
Sections :
If not included, the slab is
meshed up to the column
centreline.
If included, the slab is
meshed up to the physical
perimeter of the column
and a frame of rigid
elements is created within
this boundary.
Example Comparing FE Modelling Options
Meshing
Try to aim for 6-8 segments between
column/support positions.
For a simple model like this the suggested default
of 2500 plates produces 8 segments.
The FE Approach
AnalysisExample
Results
Contouring
Options
Comparing
FE Modelling
Options
There are numerous
contouring options.
In this example we will
focus on results including
Wood & Armer
adjustments.
Firstly, we shall use Mdtop contours to
investigate the design
hogging moments.
Contours can be created
for both the simpler and
the more sophisticated FE
models.
Shown here are the Md1top moments with column
and wall sections not
included.
The FE Approach
Design Hogging Moments
Using the simpler FE model where column and
wall sections are not included we expose peak
centroidal results at the column heads of
483kNm/m.
The more sophisticated FE model inherently allows
us to deal with moments at the column face, and
the design values reduce to 294kNm/m.
The latter model is considered to be more realistic.
The FE Approach
A problem we are still faced with is that the
contour diagrams display nodal values.
These are very localised.
They suffer from being mesh sensitive increasing the mesh density will not achieve
convergence.
They take no account of yielding that would
occur in the real model.
The FE Approach
However, these peaks can be reduced by averaging the moment
across the width of the design strip.
Centre of Column Strip
Column Strip
Middle Strip

Strips can be cut on the fly in the FE Post-Processor
In this view you can see a 2m wide strip cut right across the
column heads.
Within this strip the peak hogging moments are still 294kNm/m
(Note how results are not created within the column boundaries).

Changing to an Integral strip these reduce to 224kNm/m
You have the option to convert this into a required
area of steel.
Comparing FE with the Code Approach

Design Hogging Moments Comparison
The code approach for this model suggests peak design moments
of 212 kNm/m (265 before required 20% redistribution)
The simpler FE model gives results of 426 peak, but 364 kNm/m
using integral strip option.
Using this simpler FE model we expose peak centroidal results at
the column heads and even when these are averaged out, the
design moments are still high.
The more sophisticated FE model gives results of 294 peak, but
224 kNm/m using integral strip option.
This more sophisticated FE model inherently allows us to deal
with moments at the column face. The extreme peaks are not
generated, and when the moments are averaged out the design
values compare well with the tried and tested values established
by the idealised code method.
The FE Approach
Sagging Moments
Again contours can

be created for both
the simpler and the
more sophisticated
FE models.
Shown here are the

Md1-bot moments
for the simpler
model (column and
wall sections not
included).
Max. 102kNm/m
The FE Approach
Sagging Moments
The contours for the

more sophisticated
FE model hardly
change, giving a
max. of 101kNm/m
Note: Cutting strips

is not necessary to
identify maximum
sagging moments as
localised peaks do
not occur.
Comparing FE with the Code

Approach
Design Sagging Moments Comparison

The code approach for this model suggests a
design sagging moment of 120 kNm/m
(Before redistribution this would have been
763/877 * 120 = 104 kNm/m)
Both the simpler and the more sophisticated FE

models give a result of about 102 kNm/m.
The above is of concern. Whichever FE model is
used the result is a good deal smaller than the
code value.
But we can make another adjustment to account
for this.
Example
Sagging Moment
Comparison
The positive moment factor

is set to 1.2.
This will increase all
sagging moments by 20% it is not the same as
moment re-distribution, but
it is an option that provides
some allowance for pattern
loading.
The maximum sagging
moment is now reported as
121 kNm/m.
In this example this
happens to be in very close
agreement with the 120
kNm/m derived by the
code approach.
- Using FE Analysis
Deflections
Again contours can

be created for both
the simpler and the
more sophisticated
FE models.
The estimate total
long term deflection
for the simpler model
is 52mm
But an important
advantage of the
more sophisticated
model is that it
should reduce this
deflection
Deflections - Comparison
In the more sophisticated

FE model the deflection
estimate drops to 45mm
We need to limit
deflection to span/250
Taking the span as the
diagonal across a slab
panel, we conveniently
arrive at: 11.3m/250 =
45mm
Checks should also be
made between the
horizontal and vertical
spans
More generally, check max
deflection occurring along
a straight line between
any 2 columns

Approach
Bear in mind that multipliers are probably conservative and that
all deflection estimates are approximate
Having used a multiplier of 0.25, most engineers would be
happy if deflection is close to or does not exceed span/250.
Some engineers might use a larger multiplier (say 0.3)
Note that in more complex layouts FE analysis graphically
identifies critical locations so that consideration of deflection
and perhaps cross checks using span/effective depth can be
more focused.

Approach
TR58 suggests using a 6 multiplier for a
300mm thick slab is on the low side and
possibly a multiplier above 7 may be
necessary. This might suggest the slab fails?
However, traditional techniques using strip
methods and span/depth ratios have
indicated this model is acceptable.
Comparing FE with the Code Approach
Conclusion
For this regular model, by using the option to
include column and wall sections combined with
the integral strip feature we have generated very
comparable design information in FE when compared
with traditional code idealisation.
If we were to accept this conclusion from the outset
it is possible to show that analysis and design of
complex slabs can be carried out in Orion with
greater speed, accuracy and productivity than ever
before.
Lets start again
Example - Using FE Analysis
The FE Approach
Same Model, Same Mesh:
With the theory under our
belts we do not have to work
out what factors / choices to
make the model is created in
seconds.
During Model Generation the
option to Include Column and
Wall Sections is checked
Prior to reviewing results the
positive moment factor is set
to 1.2.
Threshold Contours
Detailing information can
be obtained by selecting
an area of steel effect,
and switching on the
Threshold Contours.
For them to be drawn
correctly you should first
right click to setup the
Concrete Cover.
Bottom Steel
The As(d)1-bot effect is selected

Right click to display the
Contour Setup
The maximum As-reqd for
sagging moments is
1150mm2/m
We noted earlier that we expect
reinforcement which provides
70-80% of this peak to be
adequate over most of the slab.
The threshold can be set by
selecting bars and spacings. In
this case T16 @ 250 provides
804mm2/m. (69%)
The areas where additional steel
is required are graphically
highlighted.
Bottom Steel
Detailing Information
The threshold diagram can be
printed out.
The additional steel required in
the highlighted zones is always
less than 1150 804 =
346mm2/m.
In this case T12 @ 250 provides
452mm2/m.
i.e. lay in extra bars to create
T16 and T12 alternate bars at
125crs in the highlighted zones.
With closer examination you
could reduce the extra bars to
T10s in patches is it worth it?
Bottom Steel Detailing Information

User Defined Area of
Steel contours can be
generated by right
clicking.
These can then be
printed and passed to
the detailer.
As (required) Contours for As(d)1-bot
Top Steel
Threshold Contours
By setting a threshold level
of 0 we can see the areas in
which at least some top steel
is required.
Note that with pattern
loading these areas would
increase slightly.
However, many would
regard it as normal/good
practice to provide some
level of reinforcement
throughout the top of the
slab.
Top Steel
Threshold Contours
The maximum As-reqd for
hogging moments is reported as
2998mm2/m
We noted earlier that hogging
moments build rapidly and that a
much lower general steel
provision will be adequate over
much of the slab.
In this case T12 @ 250 provides
452mm2/m. This is little more
than nominal reinforcement in a
300 thick slab.
The areas where additional steel is
required are graphically
highlighted.
We are only left with deciding what to do about the

reinforcement patches required over the column
heads.
This is where the integral strip feature really comes
into its own.
Bear in mind that the code approach expects this
patch to be twice as heavily reinforced in the middle
half as in the outer edges.
There are a number of ways you could tackle this,
but a good start is to look at the effect of doubling up
the nominal steel provision and then cut strips over
the top of that.
Top Steel
Threshold Contours
In this case T12 @ 125
provides 904mm2/m.
The areas where additional
steel is required are
graphically highlighted.
The zones are now quite
concentrated at the column
heads.
Top Steel
Strip Results
A 2m wide strip is cut over the
column heads.
Using the integral option the peak
As-reqd is determined as
2091mm2/m.
The additional steel required is
therefore 2091 452 =
1639mm2/m.
Adding T25 @ 250 provides an
additional 1960mm2/m.
NOTE - the 2m wide strip is
narrower than the red zone it is
conservative to cut this narrower
strip and then provide the
additional reinforcement in a
wider zone.
Top Steel Detailing Information

In this slab we have provided T12s at 250 throughout.
The threshold contours show where additional patches are
required.
In more complex jobs you might define a number of standard
patch details (although you may find that the incremental areas
provided by standard bar diameters at set spacing mean that
this is not practical).
In this example we have 1 standard patch over internal
columns, we are going to make it 5m square centred on the
columns
In the middle 2.5m the added bars are T25 @ 250
In the 1.25m strips to each side the added bars are T12 @ 250
Top Steel Detailing Information

User Defined Area of
Steel contours can be
generated by right
clicking.
These can then be
printed to indicate the
patches to the detailer.
As (required) Contours for As(d)1-top

Export of User defined As (required) Contours
The contours can be
exported as a layer
to be displayed in
the Graphic Editor
Drawings containing
the contours can
then be exported to
dxf for loading into
a CAD program.
Top Steel
Notes on Edge Patches
Moment Transfer requirements at edge columns is well covered within
BS8110 and expanded upon in Ciria Report 110. The guidance need
not be repeated within the context of this presentation.
Various checks/limits and alternatives may be applied/employed it is
all logical but quite idealised/empirical in nature.
One way of checking the moment transfer requirement is to use the
design moment developed in the column (above and below) and design
the strip for that.
We will look at what you can do within the FE post-processor in a
moment.
However, it is worth emphasising that this is a potentially severe limit
that ought to be considered early in the design process careful rearrangement of the slab/column intersection might prove to be
important and/or simply more economic.
Top Steel
Other Patches
For this simple model we would
then need to look at additional
patches:
One for the corners.
One for the edges.
In each case the code needs to be

referred to for guidance on a
suitable strip width (Cl. 3.7.4.2)
In this example a 600mm wide
strip is appropriate.
Cutting a 600mm wide strip as
shown here a steel area is
determined (1177mm2/m)
However, note that the strip is not
covering the entire red zone (the
threshold based on the general
reinforcement provision)
Top Steel
Edge Patches
The objective here is to ensure that
all of the hogging moment in the
slab is transferred to the column.
By cutting a wider strip (1.8m) we
can capture the total steel
requirement - 958mm2/m over
1.8m = 1724mm2.
If we choose to concentrate this in
a 600mm wide strip we need to
provide 2874mm2/m within that
strip.
Therefore the additional steel
required within this strip is 2874
452 = 2422mm2/m
Hence, in this very narrow strip the
additional steel requirement might
involve (4 No) T32 bars at 250.
Punching Shear
Checks are required and can be carried out within the program.
For technical information on these refer to the Punching Shear
Checks Chapter of the Engineers Handbook.
Finished
For this Simple Model
We are finished in terms of analysis and design and have
shown how information can be rapidly produced for detailing
and also for estimating.
Flat Slabs - Conclusion
Summary
For this Simple Model
We have generated design information based on the codes
idealised approach.
We have looked at two alternative FE models and shown
that very similar design information can be generated with
appropriate averaging and adjustment of the FE results.
What about more complex models?

It is very difficult to make any comparison simply because
you cannot create the idealised code model with sufficient
certainty.
Idealisation for a Regular Structure

An orthogonal system
of column strips and
middle strips is easy
to visualise.
But for an Irregular Structure?

No obvious orthogonal
system of strips.
A system of triangular
zones radiating from a
core zone that combines
the walls and the column
would be more rational.
Codes give no way to deal
with this in a simplified
fashion.
And we have still not
added holes or
concentrated loads.

Orion will automatically
generate FE models for
this and much larger
more complex models
Summary
For the Simple Model
We can make the comparisons and validate the methods.
That should give us confidence
For more Complex Models

We cannot make the comparisons because the code will not
extend to this.
But there is no reason why the same principles do not apply.

The Buildings we are asked about:
Nobody shows us a nice regular layout.

In the layouts we see the engineer has usually tried and failed
to apply the codes strip idealisation in a way that he is
comfortable with.
The engineer is turning to FE as a more sophisticated analysis.
And IT IS a more sophisticated analysis, BUT it is not a design
methodology. Any FE analysis will yield results that need to be
used carefully. The recently published TR58 starts to offer good
guidance on deflection, there appears to be less authoritative
guidance on issues such as the determination of design
moments across column heads. Engineers we speak to are often
hoping that we/software can fill such voids.
In practice the design methods ought to be established by the
profession. We can only offer guidance and this presentation
has summarised the most important aspects of this.
Thank You
We hope you have found this
interesting and informative.

Orion Flat Slab Design Training

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Orion Flat Slab Design Training

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Orion Training

Copyright CSC(UK) Ltd. 2006

Design and Detailing

Flat Slabs - Introduction

Flat Slabs - Introduction

Why Flat Slab and why FE?

Flat Slabs Flowchart

3a. Use sequential FE floor analyses to chase

3b. Slab Design and

4a. Merge FE column results for gravity loads

* If FE Floor Analysis for Beam Loads has

Flat Slabs Flowchart

3a. Use sequential FE floor analyses to chase

3b. Slab Design and

4a. Merge FE column results for gravity loads

* If FE Floor Analysis for Beam Loads has

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Enlarged View of Wall Corner

Because walls not

No problem if column/wall sections not

Example 2: Another Short

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slab Model Generation

Flat Slabs Flowchart

3a. Use sequential FE floor analyses to chase

3b. Slab Design and

4a. Merge FE column results for gravity loads

* If FE Floor Analysis for Beam Loads has

Flat Slabs Building Analysis

Flat Slabs Building Analysis

Flat Slabs Building Analysis

Flat Slabs Flowchart

3a. Use sequential FE floor analyses to chase

3b. Slab Design and

4a. Merge FE column results for gravity loads

* If FE Floor Analysis for Beam Loads has

Flat Slabs FE Analysis

Sequential finite element analysis in

Flat Slabs FE Analysis

C H Goodchild, Economic Concrete Frame

Flat Slabs FE Analysis

Flat Slabs FE Analysis

It is your decision, we would suggest: